Equipoise, Faith & the Purpose of Apologetics

quote:

---

the way i look at it, you don't apologize when you've done something right -- you apologize when you've done something wrong. yet, apologetics, same root word here, seeks to say that nothing in a particular source is wrong. that's like saying "i'm sorry" without admitting that you screwed up.

---

Exactly. Sometimes I think they're just sorry we don't agree with them. But seriously, while apology and apologetics have the same root, apologetics isn't really apologizing.This web site gave this explanation. Apology usually applies to an expression of regret for a mistake or wrong, but apologia carries more the meaning of defense or explanation.I never understood what apologetics were. I did associate it more with apologizing and never understood the need. Took a bit of research before I got rid of the whole sorry thing.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

yes, i actually knew that, but i was in middle of making a wonderfully flawed semantical argument!

---

Is that because they aren't doing it right or because it can't be done? And if it can't be done, is it because they're wrong or simply because their subject matter defies apologetics.Edited by AdminJar, : fix closing quoteEdited by AdminJar, : and opening one too

Thanks for the definitions. The second one cuts right to the heart of my dilemma. Does apologetics boil down to using evidence to defend believing without evidence? It becomes anathema to itself.*Pulls hair out*By the way, I just thought of something else I would like to ask Jar. Do the questions I've asked in my response to your post present a false dilemma? Is there an option I'm not considering here?

I can only give you my best guess so accept it for what it is worth.A lot of what they try to do is impossible. It is imposible to argue away the many contradictions in the Bible. They exist and to deny that requires mental gymnastics that will drive away anyone who has actually read the book.It is impossible to make most of the "prophecies" work. If you read Isaiah you find that Isaiah 7 is NOT talking about Jesus.It is impossible to make Young Earth or the Flood or Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan or so many of the things they try to push work.Those things can be accepted if you are willing to turn your brain off, check it at the door, to just accept Answers to Questions and stop there, find the dead end and worship it.Please understand though that I am not saying that it is impossible to accept Christianity. It is not impossible to understand the contradictions in the Bible, the tales and stories. They have a real meaning and a purpose, and I find them to enhance the value and veracity of the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

hm.

---

I would suggest that in fact the direct cause is the same bias you noticed in yourself. A completely lame argument will seem good. Inerrantists can even twist the words of the Bible without realising what they are doing.At a deeper level Biblical Inerrancy is indefensible. Only people who are prepared to buy arguments because they like the conclusions are likely to stick with it for any length of time. And there are problems enough in other aspects of Christian doctrine that apologists have a lot of work to do.t

In my opininon, the apologists are taking extreme positions that are actually indefensible with an objective look at the material. If you notice, the ones that usually are the apologists are the very conservative christians, who don't go with modern scholarship, and who take the scriptures as inerrent and literal.

I think you, as you seem to suspect anyway, are looking for a linguistic solution to provide reasonable evidence where none actually exists. A good, reasonable question to ask. But your reasoning following your possible solution.. doesn't make sense to me.
If I read you right, you are proposing that after approaching an apologetic with equipoise we come to the conclusion that it is perfectly valid. And then you're afraid that this would mean you now believe in things without evidence or proper reasoning to do so?It doesn't make sense.. do you follow what I'm getting at? You may as well be asking: If I try my best to do something, and fail, how can I trust my best ever again? It's not your method, or reasong that is faulty.. it's your conclusion that just doesn't make sense. What you seem to be concluding doesn't follow from your original thoughts.That is, if you did approach an aplogetic with equipoise, and you did find it stood up just fine to rigorous testing. Then no, you absolutely would not be "content in a state of bias amongst un-evidenced certainties". First off.. you approaced in equipoise, therefore, you are not in a state of bias. Secondly, if the apologetic held strong against "the most careful examination" then you would have your evidence, it therefore couldn't possibly be un-evidenced. No, the very tools that led you to faith (if that's what you can still call it, now that you have unbiased reasoning, and proper evidence pointing you in that direction) are doing just fine. And the means that got you there are definitely not suspect.. nothing wrong with approaching a situation with equipoise.Basically, you're using a lot of words to say:"If I found objective evidence to believe in Christianity, would it be unscientific to do so?" And, of course, the answer is 'no'. Also, obviously, such evidence has yet to be produced. This is why it's called faith.

Funny! How true. I still don't really get the question I'm afraid, but thought I'd venture a few words. Equipoise implies an intellectual approach that by its nature can't be fully trustworthy because we can't know everything. It is possible to misunderstand a particular apologetic. The intellect is flawed, language can be treacherous.Faith is based on believing something true, but specifically in the case of Christianity it means having faith in the promises given by God through Jesus Christ. Intellect can't get you there.I think a right use of intellect would recognize the veracity of the Biblical reports, so that if you don't recognize its veracity your intellect is leading you wrong, but I'm sure that's not very helpful to you in your current inquiry. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Equipoise implies an intellectual approach that by its nature can't be fully trustworthy because we can't know everything.

---

I don't see that. "Equipoise" is a lack of bias. I cannot see how bias can make the evaluation of an argument or an inevestigation any more reliable. By that standard "equipoise" does not imply a lack of reliability - in fact it makes a positive contribution to reliability.

quote:

---

I think a right use of intellect would recognize the veracity of the Biblical reports, so that if you don't recognize its veracity your intellect is leading you wrong

---

On what basis could you claim that ? And what would a "right use of intellect" be, if it did not try to deal with the evidence in an unbiased way ?

I think I need to have some more concrete facts here. What apologetics are you familiar with and what flaws do you find in them? Have you studied all the arguments? Did you read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict?" In all that book was there nothing that seemed like a well-constructed apologetic? Are you familiar with "Who Moved the Stone?" I'm failing right now to put the authors' names to these books, sorry. Hm. OK, I'm starting to get it, but it seems like an artificial dilemma to me.You mean, what if an apologetic convinced you of the truth of the Bible, the gospel, etc., what then?Well, in that case you would probably believe what the Bible reveals about the things hoped for, the things unseen, and would come to believe yourself in the reality of the things hoped for, the things unseen, and have the faith that convinces you more and more of their reality. The apologetic would have launched you into the world of faith.But the apologetic wouldn't become false for that reason. It is a tool of the intellect. The intellect is limited, but when it's right it's right. The intellect can't apprehend the things unseen, but it can construct arguments that might convince you of the reality of the things unseen, which at that point you would begin to know by faith.Why would this be a "state of bias?" Or "unevidenced certainties?" If the apologetic brought you to belief, wouldn't that be evidence? If the apologetic were convincing why wouldn't what it convinced you of be simply factual rather than bias?

Faith How the hell do you make the transition that the intellect need agree with the bible before it may be considered correct when the condition you give is that the way to know that the intellect is leading you astray is if you do not recognize the bible as correct.This is circular thinking at a new level.

It's the intellect, not equipoise, which isn't fully trustworthy. Even with an honest lack of bias we can't know everything or may be misled by a misinterpretation of facts etc. Just my opinion. Yes an unbiased treatment of the evidence would be a right use of intellect, and I was offering my own opinion that that unbiased treatment of the evidence should lead to a recognition of the veracity of the Biblical reports.

See Message 29.